In Mathew's articles she says that feminism is not a method of approaching art it is a world view consisting of its own politics. She goes on to list the three feminist approaches; recuperating the experience of women and women artists, critiquing and deconstucting authorities and ideologies, and rethinking the cultural and psychological spaces traditionally assigned to women. With regards to the "subject", the author says that "poststructuralists and psychoanalytic theories of the decentered subject- even in the hands of the feminist- are no more than another form of masculinist silencing of womens' experience and histories at the very moment they are finally beginning to be heard". I think that this means that considering the subject in the way that these theories suggest discredit feminism as a means for change and perpetuates the repression of women's experience.
In all the art history courses that I've taken, I think only a handful of times has the artwork been discussed through any sort of feminist theory. When I studied Degas, his work was not presented to me in terms of his depiction of the female and what it meant. Mathews mentions how feminists debate his intentions and the ideological affects of the females that he depicts. It is interesting to consider the work through this different lense.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
The Ferocious Feminist: Watch out!!!
Is a male capable of portraying an unmasked nude woman in art? Do we always view things as being over-sexualized, such as the references to Modigliani or Kirchner as representing women with immutable masks of femininity? Will men forever more place women on this sexual pedestal? Always in the thoughts as object, victim of the sexually deprived. Is it possible for them to see women through the eyes of a woman’s, as person and not as the other? Suzanne Valadan’s paintings-as said by Mathews-: looks at how to produce cultural meaning, giving into or resisting given values and her demands as an artist from the various subcultures of class and gender to which she belonged, the bourgeois. She set up her nudes in an unconventional way, this contrary to the usual objectified bodies on display with other artists, the majority being males. And my favorite reference to how female sexuality is a masquerade, capable of being either worn or discarded and is the dutifully performed gender act of women.
Coming from the Feminist artists viewpoint, which not only battle with assumptions about women artist, but also colored artist, issues with class and alternative sexes. Mathews first introduces the fact the feminism is something that you “do” as if it were a “method.” She states feminism is a worldview, the vision of dismantling the social and cultural hierarchies of difference of past and present. Since 1987 she states three feminist art-historical politics as being: 1. Feminist politics focusing on recuperating the experience of women and women artists. 2. Practices that critique and deconstruct authority, ideologies, institutions, resistance to them. 3. Strategies to rethink the cultural and psychological spaces traditionally assigned to women.
Mathew’s example of Valadan seems to be just this. Her paintings are from woman to woman, rather than man to man. The subjects are self-content and self-absorbed, not with sexual pleasure or an overly desired look to the onlooker. It seems to me that Valadan sees a woman as if she would see her own reflection in a mirror and all women know what I mean. As if it is a photograph taken when the woman was not paying any attention to her surroundings. But if this were a male artist, then he would most certainly represent a woman who gives the look of sexual desire because this is what they see when looking at a woman, a subject posing as the object of another’s desires. And by re-examining these past artists from a feminine perspective we then see a whole another viewpoint. Honestly, I think I would have thought some of these points without thinking from a feminist perspective, but it’s always good to look at art with various methods.
Coming from the Feminist artists viewpoint, which not only battle with assumptions about women artist, but also colored artist, issues with class and alternative sexes. Mathews first introduces the fact the feminism is something that you “do” as if it were a “method.” She states feminism is a worldview, the vision of dismantling the social and cultural hierarchies of difference of past and present. Since 1987 she states three feminist art-historical politics as being: 1. Feminist politics focusing on recuperating the experience of women and women artists. 2. Practices that critique and deconstruct authority, ideologies, institutions, resistance to them. 3. Strategies to rethink the cultural and psychological spaces traditionally assigned to women.
Mathew’s example of Valadan seems to be just this. Her paintings are from woman to woman, rather than man to man. The subjects are self-content and self-absorbed, not with sexual pleasure or an overly desired look to the onlooker. It seems to me that Valadan sees a woman as if she would see her own reflection in a mirror and all women know what I mean. As if it is a photograph taken when the woman was not paying any attention to her surroundings. But if this were a male artist, then he would most certainly represent a woman who gives the look of sexual desire because this is what they see when looking at a woman, a subject posing as the object of another’s desires. And by re-examining these past artists from a feminine perspective we then see a whole another viewpoint. Honestly, I think I would have thought some of these points without thinking from a feminist perspective, but it’s always good to look at art with various methods.
Feminist Art History
I found The Politics of Feminist Art History to be a brief yet valuable look at the practice of Feminist Art History. Patricia Mathews first breaks down three different spheres of practice for Feminist Art History, which helps us to understand its origin and to get an idea of the changes in the discourse since the 1970s.
The first sphere involves the politics of the original focus of recovering the experiences of women and women artists. This sphere originated in the 1970s and is a continuation of this early form of Feminist Art History. It primarily makes use of normative models of Art History in order to reposition women artists. This group tends to see postmodern theories such as post-structuralism and psychoanalysis as a threat to Feminism.
The second sphere is a practice that takes apart and critiques authoritative ideologies (patriarchal) and institutions. This sphere also involves looking closely at the resistance to these said critiques. It is the most widespread and is seen to also be in conflict with the first sphere because of the view that experience can’t be separated from discourse. This group makes use of critical theories that are “masculine derived” in order to convey the myths that we live by and thereby deconstruct those myths. They are also open to using discourses outside of normative Art Historical practice including gender, sexuality, the body and the gaze. Here it is possible to really look at the individual and the society that that individual lives in. Judith Butler’s theory of the masquerade is pertinent here because it allows for a deconstruction of the artwork based on the roles prescribed to men and women depending on the rules enforced by their respective societies.
The third sphere involves itself with exploring and rethinking cultural and psychological spaces traditionally connected with women and specifically uses psychoanalysis to aid in this exploration. Here Mathews specifically refers to “The Matrix,” defined by Brachia Lichtenberg Ettinger as a way to recognize “the other in his or her otherness, difference, and unknownness.” This third sphere also may make use of psychoanalytic and socio-political aspects.
Mathews also briefly discusses topics that are normally of interest to Feminist Art Historians. These topics include masculinity and an attempt to reframe male artists that have already been imprinted into the canon. Another topic is race and gender. I find it interesting that these are linked even though studies that do link them are few. I would think that there are probably reasons to connect them and reasons not to. Also, why is masculinity not included in this topic? I would like to read a discussion regarding the pros and cons of linking race and gender together. The last two topics she lists are the female body and gay and lesbian art and artists.
Finally, Mathews discusses the nudes of Suzanne Valedon. This is an artist who I know very little about, but who interestingly enough, I have heard framed in relation to her lifestyle (as a drunk and an irresponsible mother of a supposedly more successful artist – who I can’t remember the name of now). Unfortunately, within some survey courses very little time is spent on deconstructing the accepted patriarchal art historical perspectives. Thus, I found Mathews’ discussion about Valedon to be extraordinarily refreshing. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Mathews is using elements of each of the three spheres to deconstruct Valedon’s paintings. She is recuperating and revising the history of a particular woman artist, her discussion is a critique and resistance of the culture (specifically the critics that wrote poorly of Valedon’s work, probably as a result of being accustomed to a culture that sexualized women in paintings though the masculine gaze), and it also examines the cultural and psychological space of Valedon as a woman painter and model in early 1920s Paris. Ultimately, she opens up the discourse about Valedon in addition to a discussion regarding the commonalities of the three spheres of Feminist Art History.
The first sphere involves the politics of the original focus of recovering the experiences of women and women artists. This sphere originated in the 1970s and is a continuation of this early form of Feminist Art History. It primarily makes use of normative models of Art History in order to reposition women artists. This group tends to see postmodern theories such as post-structuralism and psychoanalysis as a threat to Feminism.
The second sphere is a practice that takes apart and critiques authoritative ideologies (patriarchal) and institutions. This sphere also involves looking closely at the resistance to these said critiques. It is the most widespread and is seen to also be in conflict with the first sphere because of the view that experience can’t be separated from discourse. This group makes use of critical theories that are “masculine derived” in order to convey the myths that we live by and thereby deconstruct those myths. They are also open to using discourses outside of normative Art Historical practice including gender, sexuality, the body and the gaze. Here it is possible to really look at the individual and the society that that individual lives in. Judith Butler’s theory of the masquerade is pertinent here because it allows for a deconstruction of the artwork based on the roles prescribed to men and women depending on the rules enforced by their respective societies.
The third sphere involves itself with exploring and rethinking cultural and psychological spaces traditionally connected with women and specifically uses psychoanalysis to aid in this exploration. Here Mathews specifically refers to “The Matrix,” defined by Brachia Lichtenberg Ettinger as a way to recognize “the other in his or her otherness, difference, and unknownness.” This third sphere also may make use of psychoanalytic and socio-political aspects.
Mathews also briefly discusses topics that are normally of interest to Feminist Art Historians. These topics include masculinity and an attempt to reframe male artists that have already been imprinted into the canon. Another topic is race and gender. I find it interesting that these are linked even though studies that do link them are few. I would think that there are probably reasons to connect them and reasons not to. Also, why is masculinity not included in this topic? I would like to read a discussion regarding the pros and cons of linking race and gender together. The last two topics she lists are the female body and gay and lesbian art and artists.
Finally, Mathews discusses the nudes of Suzanne Valedon. This is an artist who I know very little about, but who interestingly enough, I have heard framed in relation to her lifestyle (as a drunk and an irresponsible mother of a supposedly more successful artist – who I can’t remember the name of now). Unfortunately, within some survey courses very little time is spent on deconstructing the accepted patriarchal art historical perspectives. Thus, I found Mathews’ discussion about Valedon to be extraordinarily refreshing. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Mathews is using elements of each of the three spheres to deconstruct Valedon’s paintings. She is recuperating and revising the history of a particular woman artist, her discussion is a critique and resistance of the culture (specifically the critics that wrote poorly of Valedon’s work, probably as a result of being accustomed to a culture that sexualized women in paintings though the masculine gaze), and it also examines the cultural and psychological space of Valedon as a woman painter and model in early 1920s Paris. Ultimately, she opens up the discourse about Valedon in addition to a discussion regarding the commonalities of the three spheres of Feminist Art History.
Feminist Art History: Disposal Strategy or Worldview?
Just a few random thoughts on Patricia Mathews’ The Politics of Feminist Art History of 1997.
1. The state of the field she describes is fractured and plural although feminism has become central to the work and thinking of many students and scholars across academic fields. Multiple strategies have existed within art history of uncovering female artists and their experiences, undermining the ideological power structure that supports a hierarchy of differences and rethinking female subjectivity from a psychoanalytic perspective. (Kristeva fits in here.)
2. In terms of what we’ve studied so far, the category of female nude, familiar to all of us from the Venus of Urbino on down through history, has become a semiotic sign. Mathews calls this conventional image “an emptied act, an act without a subject, an artifice that functions as a screen on which is projected the masculinist fantasies of power and control.” How loaded is that: Saussure, Lacan’s the mirror stage and Foucauldian ideology all in one!
3. I found hope in Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger’s “Matrix,” also used by Griselda Pollock. It is an expansion or augmentation of Lacan’s phallocentric world with a feminine dimension or space maternal and life giving to both the body and the intellect.
4. I can’t speak to the experience of Black feminists today, but I have read in the recent past that feminist artists of color often felt subjected to multiple hierarchies and divisions. They felt divided from white feminists by race and subordinated by male artists of color because of their gender. Maybe some of you can fill me in here.
5. T. J. Clark would most likely approve of Mathew’s contextual interpretation of Valadon’s nudes taking into account “a synchronic search for the conditions and terms of a cultural moment and the acts of a n individual artist within that moment as s/he transmits and transforms those conditions in works of art..” (100). In this case it is Paris of the 1890’s to the 1930’s that she is interrogating focusing in on class and gender.
6. Regarding the masquerade of femininity which Mathews describes as the expected and often dutilfully performed gender act of women, photographs of Marilyn Monroe by Richard Avedon are instructive. Avedon shot. photograph after photograph of Monroe smiling, posing, basically performing for the camera and the male photographer in the role of seductive, alluring and sexually desirable movie star. There is one photo in which she has relaxed her body and let the mask slip. She looks self-absorbed, deflated, emotionally distant, just like Valadon’s female nudes. In this photo she has moved from object to subject.
Freud, Feminism, and the Gaze
According to Freud, all of us have had to repress basic instinctual feelings because of societal pressures. Because we are unhappy with the reality that we must live in due to these repressions we develop fantasies. Our fantasies let us experience what we cannot live out in reality. Each one of us handles these repressions and fantasies differently. Most of us have developed a way to cope with what we’re forced to repress. Others may live too deep in their fantasies and as a result are labeled as suffering from neuroses and mental illnesses. A fine line separates artists from these individuals. The “artistic gift” allows individuals to “transform his phantasies into artistic creations instead of symptoms.” Artists express their fantasies through their artwork. The public accepts the artwork because they recognize and understand the fantasies and repressions that are being depicted.
Lacan deviates from Freud and uses three stages that include the mirror (the middle stage) stage followed by the introduction to language. Somewhere in there falls the “gaze” concept which I’ll come back to later.
Mathews gives us an overview of feminism and art history. She reviews three different strategies that feminism can take “(1) recuperating the experience of women and women artists, (2) critiquing and deconstructing authority, institutions, and ideologies, and (3) rethinking the cultural and psychological spaces traditionally assigned to women.” She then discusses her own strategy and applies it to the paintings of Suzanne Valadon. Mathews returns us to the discussion of the “gaze.” How do we look at nudes? How do we critique nudes? Do we look at them as Freud says we do…through repression and fantasy? Should we use masculine doctrines or should we look at them using the methodologies advocated by feminisms?
In the different readings, the discussion of the “gaze” involves not only us looking at the artwork, but the subjects themselves looking back at us. Three images are stuck in my mind (1) Monet’s 1917 self portrait, (2) Valadon’s “Catherine Nude Seated on a Panther Skin, and (3) Peter Hujar’s self portrait from the Queer Cultural Center (http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/Hujar/hujarindex.html). What have these individuals had to repress? What fantasies are expressed? How have their experiences shaped their gaze as they look back at us? From all of this I've gathered that our experiences are a three-way street; they shape how we look, interpret, critique ourselves, how we depict ourselves, and how we present ourselves to others.
Lacan deviates from Freud and uses three stages that include the mirror (the middle stage) stage followed by the introduction to language. Somewhere in there falls the “gaze” concept which I’ll come back to later.
Mathews gives us an overview of feminism and art history. She reviews three different strategies that feminism can take “(1) recuperating the experience of women and women artists, (2) critiquing and deconstructing authority, institutions, and ideologies, and (3) rethinking the cultural and psychological spaces traditionally assigned to women.” She then discusses her own strategy and applies it to the paintings of Suzanne Valadon. Mathews returns us to the discussion of the “gaze.” How do we look at nudes? How do we critique nudes? Do we look at them as Freud says we do…through repression and fantasy? Should we use masculine doctrines or should we look at them using the methodologies advocated by feminisms?
In the different readings, the discussion of the “gaze” involves not only us looking at the artwork, but the subjects themselves looking back at us. Three images are stuck in my mind (1) Monet’s 1917 self portrait, (2) Valadon’s “Catherine Nude Seated on a Panther Skin, and (3) Peter Hujar’s self portrait from the Queer Cultural Center (http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/Hujar/hujarindex.html). What have these individuals had to repress? What fantasies are expressed? How have their experiences shaped their gaze as they look back at us? From all of this I've gathered that our experiences are a three-way street; they shape how we look, interpret, critique ourselves, how we depict ourselves, and how we present ourselves to others.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Dynamics in Feminist Art History
Feminist Art History challenges the conventions of the diachronic conventional modes of art history and brings about issues of gender differences. The interdisciplinary research by feminist art historians are a valuable contemporary narrative to the field. Within this narrative, feminism looks at issues beyond art history and into the realm of the macro views of world politics.
Many female artists and art historians are disgruntled by Postmodernist theory because, and rightfully so, Postmodernism attemps to categorize these artists and historians with the conventional modes of art history. Postmodernism, as well as Postfeminism, appear to "remasculinize" the feminist identities (96).
Although many feminists art historians are working to expose the deficiencies of masculine driven theories within art history, Patricia Mathews argues that is is important to look at psychoanalytical theories of feminism. Mathews discusses Lacan's Symbolic Orer informing the work of feminist art historians. From what I gathered, feminism is ingrained in every man and woman of difference races and classes during the time he or she was in the mother's womb.
Also, it seems that many feminist art historians are using their narratives to challenge the masculine-driven theories of Modernism and are not focusing their efforts on contemporary artists who create work that deals with issues of race, gender, and difference. It is unfortunate that feminist art historians need to prove themselves within the art history field but these historians are starting to focus their energies on artists who deal with gender and race.
Matthews does a great job of explaining how she integrates ideology and subjectivity within her analysis of artist Suzanne Valadon. By focusing on the artist and the culture of the artist's time period, Mathew's provides a more holistic as well as a more detailed analysis of Valadon's female nude paintings. These females in these paintings are allowed to be themselves without the make of the "I" as the Other because of Mathews removes the word feminism from her analysis (being that it is outside the masculine gaze - 102). Also, I thought it was very important that it was noted that Valadon was an artist's model because it allows the reader to understand Valodon's own "I" to bring out the "I" of the females portrayed in her paintings. After discussing subjectivity representation of Valodon's female nudes. Mathews goes on to challenge the ideologoies of the most male critics repulsion of these female nudes. Mathews discredits these critics analyses as the result of bourgeois society's rejection of these female nudes as being different. But Mathews also does a great job of bringing in the cultural context the artist was working in to understand her subjective reasonings.
Hopefully, we will have some time to discuss this article next week.
Many female artists and art historians are disgruntled by Postmodernist theory because, and rightfully so, Postmodernism attemps to categorize these artists and historians with the conventional modes of art history. Postmodernism, as well as Postfeminism, appear to "remasculinize" the feminist identities (96).
Although many feminists art historians are working to expose the deficiencies of masculine driven theories within art history, Patricia Mathews argues that is is important to look at psychoanalytical theories of feminism. Mathews discusses Lacan's Symbolic Orer informing the work of feminist art historians. From what I gathered, feminism is ingrained in every man and woman of difference races and classes during the time he or she was in the mother's womb.
Also, it seems that many feminist art historians are using their narratives to challenge the masculine-driven theories of Modernism and are not focusing their efforts on contemporary artists who create work that deals with issues of race, gender, and difference. It is unfortunate that feminist art historians need to prove themselves within the art history field but these historians are starting to focus their energies on artists who deal with gender and race.
Matthews does a great job of explaining how she integrates ideology and subjectivity within her analysis of artist Suzanne Valadon. By focusing on the artist and the culture of the artist's time period, Mathew's provides a more holistic as well as a more detailed analysis of Valadon's female nude paintings. These females in these paintings are allowed to be themselves without the make of the "I" as the Other because of Mathews removes the word feminism from her analysis (being that it is outside the masculine gaze - 102). Also, I thought it was very important that it was noted that Valadon was an artist's model because it allows the reader to understand Valodon's own "I" to bring out the "I" of the females portrayed in her paintings. After discussing subjectivity representation of Valodon's female nudes. Mathews goes on to challenge the ideologoies of the most male critics repulsion of these female nudes. Mathews discredits these critics analyses as the result of bourgeois society's rejection of these female nudes as being different. But Mathews also does a great job of bringing in the cultural context the artist was working in to understand her subjective reasonings.
Hopefully, we will have some time to discuss this article next week.
Feminist Art History
What is Feminism? Also who decides what is feminist art? After reading the article by Patricia Mathews entitled The Politics of Feminist Art History. I was able to understand how the feminist art history came about and who is it for. The methodology of art history is actually a new methodology that historians have been using. After reading this article I got the feeling that Mathews was almost disappointed with other female Art Historians who do not use or practice feminism art history or in their writings.
She says that feminism has three main ways of practices. One) recuperating the experience of women and women artist. Two) deconstruct the ideology of what it thought to be right for women. And Three) to rethink culture in both society and psychoanalytical perspectives. With all three of these practices it this would have a more welcoming and compelling not only to female art historians but maybe to men as well.
Mathews ask the question why do we have feminist art theory and who actually uses it? I found that many women did in fact seem very upset that other women in the field of at history did not use this theory and so that may be the case of why she and fellow female feminist seem to have a bad rap when it come time to talk about how and why they use his methodology.
When Mathews was talk about her own work and how the artist Valadon was shunned upon and almost nonexistent when it came to her paintings. I did think that an it was interesting that she was a model doe Degas and Renoir before she started to do her own work. When the time finally came many critics did not like her work and thought of her as a degenerate.
I do not know of a more intriguing methodology them feminism. It seems that any type of person is able is able to us this in their research and also in there course work. Even though this is a new theory it seems as if it as been around as long as all other theories that artist and art historians have been using even thought they didn’t know it.
She says that feminism has three main ways of practices. One) recuperating the experience of women and women artist. Two) deconstruct the ideology of what it thought to be right for women. And Three) to rethink culture in both society and psychoanalytical perspectives. With all three of these practices it this would have a more welcoming and compelling not only to female art historians but maybe to men as well.
Mathews ask the question why do we have feminist art theory and who actually uses it? I found that many women did in fact seem very upset that other women in the field of at history did not use this theory and so that may be the case of why she and fellow female feminist seem to have a bad rap when it come time to talk about how and why they use his methodology.
When Mathews was talk about her own work and how the artist Valadon was shunned upon and almost nonexistent when it came to her paintings. I did think that an it was interesting that she was a model doe Degas and Renoir before she started to do her own work. When the time finally came many critics did not like her work and thought of her as a degenerate.
I do not know of a more intriguing methodology them feminism. It seems that any type of person is able is able to us this in their research and also in there course work. Even though this is a new theory it seems as if it as been around as long as all other theories that artist and art historians have been using even thought they didn’t know it.
Feminist Art History
What I found most interesting about Patricia Mathews "The Politics of Feminist Art History," is that Feminism is not just an ideology, viewpoint, or methodology under which art and politics are reviewed, but a combination of all three. It is this combination that makes Feminism "active." In her introduction to Feminist politics, Mathews outlines several Feminist art-historical interests including "1) recuperating the experience of women and women artists; 2) practices that critique and deconstruct authority, institutions and ideologies and/or examine resistances to them; 3) strategies concerned to rethink the cultural and psychological spaces traditionally assigned to women." (95).
With Feminism it is not enough to evaluate the formal characteristics of an artwork (as has been the case with all of the theories we have looked at this far) because the meaning will be "incomplete." Instead, both the artists, their class and politics, the politics of the time in which the artist is producing work, and the class/politics of the subject or model need to be evaluated and taken into account in order to derive meaning or narrative. Mathews uses the female nudes of Suzanne Valadon (1865-1938) as an example of a Feminist critique.
The female nude genre of which Valadon depicts is much different than those of the "conventional portrayal of women as objectified bodies on display." (101) Mathews uses Judith Butler's examples of gender being both a "masquerade" and performance when looking at the ease and casualness of Valadon's models. They are real and natural, with drooping breasts and sagging skin, which makes for interesting critiques from male critics who believe that the female nude represented through art should be idealized and sensual; simply aesthetic. Critics focused on the aesthetics, unpleasing to most. They tended to concentrate on the physical, rather than the woman being painted. To most, the female nude was an object in which to fantasize about.
Mathews also brings up the relationship these models have with Valadon as an artist compared to a relationship nude, female models have with a male artist. Mathews writes, "They are present as subjects. . .Their gender masks have slipped or entirely fallen away." (102) The type of relationship models have with the artist, or lack there of, depends on how they will be portrayed. Male artists tend to objectify female nudes, playing up female sexuality and projecting their own fantasies upon the work. Valadon portrays her nudes as women, real and of the world around them. Mathews notes the distant gaze in many of the eyes of Valadon's nudes, suggesting their withdrawal from the gaze of the viewer. "They possess subjectivity, and their subjectivity is not on display." (102)
With Feminism it is not enough to evaluate the formal characteristics of an artwork (as has been the case with all of the theories we have looked at this far) because the meaning will be "incomplete." Instead, both the artists, their class and politics, the politics of the time in which the artist is producing work, and the class/politics of the subject or model need to be evaluated and taken into account in order to derive meaning or narrative. Mathews uses the female nudes of Suzanne Valadon (1865-1938) as an example of a Feminist critique.
The female nude genre of which Valadon depicts is much different than those of the "conventional portrayal of women as objectified bodies on display." (101) Mathews uses Judith Butler's examples of gender being both a "masquerade" and performance when looking at the ease and casualness of Valadon's models. They are real and natural, with drooping breasts and sagging skin, which makes for interesting critiques from male critics who believe that the female nude represented through art should be idealized and sensual; simply aesthetic. Critics focused on the aesthetics, unpleasing to most. They tended to concentrate on the physical, rather than the woman being painted. To most, the female nude was an object in which to fantasize about.
Mathews also brings up the relationship these models have with Valadon as an artist compared to a relationship nude, female models have with a male artist. Mathews writes, "They are present as subjects. . .Their gender masks have slipped or entirely fallen away." (102) The type of relationship models have with the artist, or lack there of, depends on how they will be portrayed. Male artists tend to objectify female nudes, playing up female sexuality and projecting their own fantasies upon the work. Valadon portrays her nudes as women, real and of the world around them. Mathews notes the distant gaze in many of the eyes of Valadon's nudes, suggesting their withdrawal from the gaze of the viewer. "They possess subjectivity, and their subjectivity is not on display." (102)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)